The concepts of public shaming and revenge should be removed from the criminal justice system.

Even the idea that a victim's family should have a front row seat at an execution is disgusting in a modern society.

As timujin said above, the criminal should not be punished before he is found guilty, and even afterwards, he should still be treated with respect. I realize this is very different than what most Americans think, but they are wrong. Americans have reverted to pre-Enlightenment thinking, for the most part.

Apparently some people in Massachusetts aren't buying that whole "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" shiat. Sure, most of the wankers probably deserve to be flogged repeatedly, but due justice ought to prevail.

Just for clarification, what I was saying about mugshots was that there is a way to put a photo of the accused (and there is a reason to do that such as other victims can come forward and say that they too were wronged). But mister newspaper editor wants to splash the accused across the top of the page in their jumpsuit to sell papers.

/works at a paper//we only run mugshots///don't want to give criminals (or accused) any more space than have to.

Relatively Obscure:The rampant Bay State practice of letting defendants hide their faces in court is raising outrage among legal experts and victims advocates who say the public has a right to see accused criminals.

I think there might be a relevant word in there somewhere.

This. But what America really needs to know in order to make a balanced and fair decision... What does Nancy Grace think?

AverageAmericanGuy:The concepts of public shaming and revenge should be removed from the criminal justice system.

Even the idea that a victim's family should have a front row seat at an execution is disgusting in a modern society.

As timujin said above, the criminal should not be punished before he is found guilty, and even afterwards, he should still be treated with respect. I realize this is very different than what most Americans think, but they are wrong. Americans have reverted to pre-Enlightenment thinking, for the most part.

Agreed. Once they serve their sentence, they should return to being regular citizens, with all the rights that it entails.

I was going to jump on the "mugshots, stupid" bandwagon, but then I actually RTFA and realized it had little to nothing to do with newspaper pictures. They're actually letting the defendants hide in the courtroom during arraignments. As in while they're their answering to the charges they're hiding from all the people present.

That does seem pretty stupid. Why bother even having them come to court if you're going to let them do that?

Rodeodoc:Relatively Obscure: The rampant Bay State practice of letting defendants hide their faces in court is raising outrage among legal experts and victims advocates who say the public has a right to see accused criminals.

I think there might be a relevant word in there somewhere.

This. But what America really needs to know in order to make a balanced and fair decision... What does Nancy Grace think?

That's easy. The accused criminal should be flayed alive and then thrown into a volcano. This is true for every trial.

mgshamster:AverageAmericanGuy: The concepts of public shaming and revenge should be removed from the criminal justice system.

Even the idea that a victim's family should have a front row seat at an execution is disgusting in a modern society.

As timujin said above, the criminal should not be punished before he is found guilty, and even afterwards, he should still be treated with respect. I realize this is very different than what most Americans think, but they are wrong. Americans have reverted to pre-Enlightenment thinking, for the most part.

Agreed. Once they serve their sentence, they should return to being regular citizens, with all the rights that it entails.

Not quite my point, but agreed.

The justice system should be focused on the punishment (and ideally rehabilitation) of those convicted for the crime committed. Inherent in an enlightened society is the concept of human dignity, even to the lowest among us. Allowing human emotions like anger and revenge to creep in to punishments leaves the door open for abuse of power and inhumane treatment of criminals.

""Nobody coddles their criminals more than Massachusetts," said Laurie Meyers, head of Community Voices, a child protection advocacy group. "If you are charged with a crime, you are there to face the music. ... From the victims' advocacy side of it, hiding someone's identity is another slap in the face of the victim." "

I never liked how mugshots are public information and allowed to be shown. We're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty but having a mugshot out there doesn't help you. I think it's Germany that outlaws the showing of mugshots.

timujin:FTFA: If you are charged with a crime, you are there to face the music.

Um, no. If you are convicted of a crime, you go to your sentencing hearing to "face the music."

This, a thousand times this. This attitude that somehow trails are a formality to decide punishment rather than an honest hearing to establish the facts of a matter is every single thing that is wrong with our court system today. But try to tell that to people who use "victims rights" as a polite word for the nasty desire that many people have to see someone, anyone suffer for a crime so that they can have 'closure".

As a lifelong Massachusetts resident I'm filled with an overwhelming inability to give a fark.

Jesus Herald....can't you guys just be totally replaced with InfoWars and be done with it? It's got to be exhausting making up this much crap on a daily basis even of it is as half-arsed as your "journalistic integrity" is.

skozlaw:I was going to jump on the "mugshots, stupid" bandwagon, but then I actually RTFA and realized it had little to nothing to do with newspaper pictures. They're actually letting the defendants hide in the courtroom during arraignments. As in while they're their answering to the charges they're hiding from all the people present.

That does seem pretty stupid. Why bother even having them come to court if you're going to let them do that?

I thought so too...but you know, a defendant should have as much right in the pretrial phase of proceeding not to have a camera aimed at his face as anyone else. The courtroom is public, but that doesn't necessarily mean a three-camera shoot at all times.

skinink:I never liked how mugshots are public information and allowed to be shown. We're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty but having a mugshot out there doesn't help you. I think it's Germany that outlaws the showing of mugshots.

I'm a 180 from you. The police have no right to conceal the identity of anyone the've taken into custody.

It's only been since the mid-80s that cameras were allowed in court. They still aren't allowed in many.Some states ban the taking of pictures at a perp walk.I don't have a problem with defendants trying to evade photographers during arraignment.Defendants shouldn't be allowed to conceal their faces in open court.

Dear Jerk:skinink: I never liked how mugshots are public information and allowed to be shown. We're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty but having a mugshot out there doesn't help you. I think it's Germany that outlaws the showing of mugshots.

I'm a 180 from you. The police have no right to conceal the identity of anyone the've taken into custody.

It's only been since the mid-80s that cameras were allowed in court. They still aren't allowed in many.Some states ban the taking of pictures at a perp walk.I don't have a problem with defendants trying to evade photographers during arraignment.Defendants shouldn't be allowed to conceal their faces in open court.

/former photojournalist

I wouldn't have a problem with that if those same people would have front page stories about their innocence when they get off.

But since they don't, I have a problem with the pictures pre-conviction.

I wouldn't have a problem with that if those same people would have front page stories about their innocence when they get off.

That is a long-time fault of media.But my first concern is with the folly of letting the police/judiciary operate in private.My secondary concern is that the general public do not take the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' seriously.

Dear Jerk:skinink: I never liked how mugshots are public information and allowed to be shown. We're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty but having a mugshot out there doesn't help you. I think it's Germany that outlaws the showing of mugshots.

I'm a 180 from you. The police have no right to conceal the identity of anyone the've taken into custody.

It's only been since the mid-80s that cameras were allowed in court. They still aren't allowed in many.Some states ban the taking of pictures at a perp walk.I don't have a problem with defendants trying to evade photographers during arraignment.Defendants shouldn't be allowed to conceal their faces in open court.

Dear Jerk:I wouldn't have a problem with that if those same people would have front page stories about their innocence when they get off.

That is a long-time fault of media.But my first concern is with the folly of letting the police/judiciary operate in private.My secondary concern is that the general public do not take the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' seriously.

Not taking a photo is extremely different from not being allowed to report on the case or court proceedings as a journalist.

mgshamster:Dear Jerk: I wouldn't have a problem with that if those same people would have front page stories about their innocence when they get off.

That is a long-time fault of media.But my first concern is with the folly of letting the police/judiciary operate in private.My secondary concern is that the general public do not take the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' seriously.

Not taking a photo is extremely different from not being allowed to report on the case or court proceedings as a journalist.

Not from a first amendment point of view. If you (most people) would get over your assumption of guilt, and see the defendant as innocent, you'd see that media is there mainly to keep the powers-that-be in check.

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer", - English jurist William Blackstone in his seminal work, Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s.

Or

Genesis 18:23-32 (if yer churchy)

23 Then Abraham approached him and said: "Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare[a] the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing-to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?"26 The Lord said, "If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake."27 Then Abraham spoke up again: "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?""If I find forty-five there," he said, "I will not destroy it."29 Once again he spoke to him, "What if only forty are found there?"He said, "For the sake of forty, I will not do it."30 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?"He answered, "I will not do it if I find thirty there."31 Abraham said, "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?"He said, "For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it."32 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?"He answered, "For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it."

Dear Jerk:mgshamster: Dear Jerk: I wouldn't have a problem with that if those same people would have front page stories about their innocence when they get off.

That is a long-time fault of media.But my first concern is with the folly of letting the police/judiciary operate in private.My secondary concern is that the general public do not take the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' seriously.

Not taking a photo is extremely different from not being allowed to report on the case or court proceedings as a journalist.

Not from a first amendment point of view. If you (most people) would get over your assumption of guilt, and see the defendant as innocent, you'd see that media is there mainly to keep the powers-that-be in check.

Dear Jerk:mgshamster: Dear Jerk: I wouldn't have a problem with that if those same people would have front page stories about their innocence when they get off.

That is a long-time fault of media.But my first concern is with the folly of letting the police/judiciary operate in private.My secondary concern is that the general public do not take the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' seriously.

Not taking a photo is extremely different from not being allowed to report on the case or court proceedings as a journalist.

Not from a first amendment point of view. If you (most people) would get over your assumption of guilt, and see the defendant as innocent, you'd see that media is there mainly to keep the powers-that-be in check.

Crap. Double post. But here goes: Then what the FARK took the media so damn long to say "uh, guys? Maybe this Obama cat's not exactly who we've been telling everyone?"

MooseUpNorth:doglover: The public shouldn't even get the names of the accused until the trial's over.

This.

I see where you're coming from, guys, but really - given what we've learned about the shenanigans at NSA, I don't think we want to allow courts to hold secret trials. How does it go? Oh, yeah: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial".

Dear Jerk:mgshamster: Dear Jerk: I wouldn't have a problem with that if those same people would have front page stories about their innocence when they get off.

That is a long-time fault of media.But my first concern is with the folly of letting the police/judiciary operate in private.My secondary concern is that the general public do not take the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' seriously.

Not taking a photo is extremely different from not being allowed to report on the case or court proceedings as a journalist.

Not from a first amendment point of view. If you (most people) would get over your assumption of guilt, and see the defendant as innocent, you'd see that media is there mainly to keep the powers-that-be in check.

Ah. I didn't know that slandering someone's name and never letting the public know when they've been cleared by the court was "keeping the powers-that-be in check."

skozlaw:That does seem pretty stupid. Why bother even having them come to court if you're going to let them do that?

They are not brought to court for our convenience, they are brought to court for a fair, public trial. The public trial is actually for their protection, not ours. The idea is too many people disappear in countries without public trials. It's not even in the public's interest to let people waive that right, because it would be too easy for a government to say, 'ah, he waived his right' and disappear someone.

Let them hide unless there is a public need to have their picture out there, and by public need I don't mean 'hey everyone, let's point and laugh'. If you need to find out if someone has more victims and showing his face around, you may need to publish pictures, but that should be something the police release, not a guaranteed right of the press. As long as there is enough 'public' in the trial that the government can't hide arrests, fine.

Now, once someone is convicted, sure, give them a perp walk. Also, if someone is such a public figure that you have stock photos of them on file, it then becomes a free speech issue. People are already going to know who O.J. Simpson you announce you've arrested him, so a picture isn't going to add to the shame much, although showing anyone in a orange jumpsuit is kind of a way to imply their guilt.

Translation: We want to show people accused of horrible things before they are we know if they are guilty or not. It's a slap in the face to victims or it's a kick to the nuts of the falsely accused. Which is the least unfair?